[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-206?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12782054#action_12782054
]
Grant Ingersoll commented on MAHOUT-206:
----------------------------------------
Jake, there's something weird in this patch in regards to SparseVector. It
didn't delete the file, but instead left it empty.
It seems like there is still some commonality between the two implementations
(size, cardinality, etc.) that I think it would be worthwhile to keep
SparseVector as an abstract class which the other two extend.
> Separate and clearly label different SparseVector implementations
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MAHOUT-206
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-206
> Project: Mahout
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Matrix
> Affects Versions: 0.2
> Environment: all
> Reporter: Jake Mannix
> Assignee: Grant Ingersoll
> Fix For: 0.3
>
> Attachments: MAHOUT-206.patch
>
>
> Shashi's last patch on MAHOUT-165 swapped out the int/double parallel array
> impl of SparseVector for an OpenIntDoubleMap (hash-based) one. We actually
> need both, as I think I've mentioned a gazillion times.
> There was a patch, long ago, on MAHOUT-165, in which Ted had
> OrderedIntDoubleVector, and OpenIntDoubleHashVector (or something to that
> effect), and neither of them are called SparseVector. I like this, because
> it forces people to choose what kind of SparseVector they want (and they
> should: sparse is an optimization, and the client should make a conscious
> decision what they're optimizing for).
> We could call them RandomAccessSparseVector and SequentialAccessSparseVector,
> to be really obvious.
> But really, the important part is we have both.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
